1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19021998 propounded by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu,
whereby he has convicted and sentenced Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, son of Dalip Singh, resident of Simbal Camp, Tehsil R.S.Pura, Jammu to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 RFC and one year's imprisonment under section 4/27 Arms Act.
2. The sheet anchor of the prosecution case stemming out of the record having trait in narration is that on 06071992, Police Post, Miran Saheb,
received an information from a reliable source at 2.10p.m that during celebration of marriage of daughter of Sangat Singh in his house at Simbal
Camp Tikri, Ward no.1, Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, accused, actuated with criminal intention, committed a murderous assault on one Ajit Paul
Singh son of Ujagar Singh with a Kirch in his possession and caused four injuries, one after the other persistently, on the chest and the abdomen,
as a result of which, the injured fell down in a pool of blood and had been removed to Hospital at Jammu. Hardeep Singh, SubInspector, Incharge,
Police Post, Miran Saheb, entered the information in Daily Register and dispatched its copy to the Police Station, R.S. Pura, for registration of the
case under section s 307 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. ASI Jaswant Singh and Constable Baldev Raj were sent for recording statement of the injured
in the Hospital. Hardeep Singh, SubInspector, himself rushed to the spot. Soon after, the injured died in the Hospital and, consequently, the
offence was converted from section 307 RPC to section 302 RPC. The dead body of the deceased was taken in custody by the Police and got its
autopsy conducted from PW Dr. Anayat Ullah. A blood sample taken from the body of the deceased was handed over to Jaswant Singh, ASI,
along with blood stained garments of the deceased, which were seized and sealed. The dead body was, thereafter, handed over to the father of the
deceased to perform the last rite ceremonies. The accused came to be arrested by the Police and on his disclosure statement made during
investigation on 9th July, 1992 while in Police custody, weapon of offence, 'Kirch1 was recovered at his instance from a Pully underneath a bridge
at the Jammu R.s. Pura road, and seized and sealed it by the Police. After recording the statement of the witnesses and on conclusion of the
investigation, the accused was finally sent up for trial for the alleged offence under section 302 RPC. The Trial court, on appreciation of the
evidence let in by the prosecution during the currency of the trial and after considering the rival contentions, found the accused guilty under sections
302 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.
3. Mr. Ajay Kotwal, learned counsel, debated that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, which persuaded the appellant to cause the
murder of the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh, by inflicting injuries with a Kirch, in the house of Sangat Singh. Neither any scuffle had taken place nor
there was any provocation prior to the alleged commission of the offence attributed to the accused and, thus, completely improbablize the
prosecution version. The evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the Trial Court is neither trustworthy nor credible to warrant the conviction,
particularly, when the accused was at Poonch at the time alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place. Even the ocular testimony of the eye
witnesses does not find support from the medical testimony and other incriminating circumstances and, thus, entitles the accused to be acquitted of
the offences with which he stands charged. Mr.B.S Salathia, Senior AAG, on the other hand, argued that the direct evidence of the eye witnesses
relied upon by the prosecution stands corrobated in material particulars by medical evidence. The evidence is consistent only with the hypothesis
that the accused alone had killed Ajit Paul Singh, by causing injuries with a Kirch, in broad day light and committed a cold blooded murder in the
house of Sangat Singh during the celebration of the marriage of his daughter.
4. we have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record meticulously.
5. It may be pointed out at the first flush that the Trial Court in this Case has relied upon (i) the testimony of the eye witnesses, namely Ujagar
Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Harnam Singh who happened to be invited in the marriage of the daughter of Sangat Singh, and were
present there at the time of occurrence; (ii) the evidence of Sangat Singh and Tarlok Singh, his son, with regard to the invitation to the deceased,
Ajit Singh, and the accused, Karanjit Singh and their participation in the marriage; (iii) medical evidence provided by Dr. Anayat Ullah Sheikh who
conducted the postmorten examination, and proved the injuries found on the person of the deceased during post mortem examination, and his
opinion with regard to the infliction of the injuries with the weapon shown to him, firstly, after seizure by the Police during investigation and then in
the Court during his evidence and (iv) motive.
6. As regards the first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused, PW Ujagar Singh, who happens to be father of
the deceased, came in the witness box to depose that accused Karanjit Singh came to their house on 05071992 and met the deceased in the
latter's room. After sometime, when the accused, in a fit of rage, left the house, he enquired from his son as to what had transpired between them,
the deceased narrated that the accused wanted to keep him a Cleaner with the truck, which the deceased declined, as the accused had earlier
committed the murder of a person belonging to their ""baradari"" and had been released from the Jail recently. The deceased also told him that the
accused got irritated on receiving the reply and extended a threat to his life. It was on 6th July 1992, the witness along with his son, Ajit Paul Singh,
went to the house of PW Sangat Singh to participation in the marriage ceremony of his daughter at 9.00 /10.00 a.m. The accused was also seen
there., The witness along with others became busy with the guests in serving meals to them. It was at about 1.45p.m., accused Karanjit Singh,
when saw his son standing near the hand pump in the compound of PW Sangat Singh alone, raised a ""Lalkara"" that to take revenge of his having
been turned out by the deceased from his house yesterday disgracefully, pounced upon him with a kirch and inflicted four injuries on the chest, the
abdomen and other parts of the body, as a result of which, which the deceased fell on the ground bleeding profusely. The witness further stated to
have seen the occurrence with his naked eyes along with Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh, Rajinder Singh and Narinder Paul Singh besides others,
present in the marriage on spot. After committing the murderous assault on the deceased, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. The
deceased was removed to the Hospital in injured condition initially on a threewheeler up to the main road and there from shifted on a truck, and
admitted in the Emergency Ward. The deceased, however, could not withstand the injuries and succumbed to it soon after. The witness further
stated that the police arrived in the Hospital and took the dead body of the deceased in custody. After the postmortem examination, the dead body
of the deceased was handed over to the father of the deceased. He is also a witness to the seizure memos EXPWUS, EXPWUSI and
EXPWUS2, vide which the vial full of blood of the deceased was handed over by the doctor along with the blood stained wearing apparels of the
deceased. The seized articles were sealed on spot and its seal kept on Superdnama of PW Rajinder Singh vide memo EXPWUS3. The witness
further stated to have marked and attested memos EXPWUS5 and EXPWUS6, vide which simple soil and blood stained soil were seized by the
Police from the spot were seized by the Police from the spot, during investigation. This witness further identified and proved the Kirch
(EXPWUS1) shown to him in the Court to be the same, which was used by the accused while committing the murderous assault on the deceased
on the fateful day. On CrossExamination, the witness stated that he along with his son, deceased Ajit Paul Singh, went to the house of PW Sangat
Sing, where the 'Barat' had already reached. He and his son did not accompany Sangat Singh to the Gurudwara, where marriage ceremony
('Anand Karj') of the daughter of Sangat Singh was being performed. In fact, he was asked by Sangat Singh to remain at home and look after the
invitees. The 'Barat' came back in the house of Sangat Sing at about 11.30 a.m. The meals has been started to be served to the invitees and the
'Baratis' at 11.30 a.m., in which both the accused and the deceased were also present. It was after the first group consisting of 300400people had
already taken the meals and second group had yet to occupy their places, the occurrence took place. The witness was standing outside the
'Pandal' for supervision and at that time, Harnam Singh, Narinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Rajinder Singh were also standing with him. He along
with Harnam Singh was entrusted the task of supervision and others were given duty to serve the meals to the invitees and to the ""baratis"". The
witness categorically stated that when the tables were being cleaned, the accused proceeded towards standing near a handpump under a tree at a
distance of about 15 yards from the 'Pandal1 and when raised a 'Lalkara', he got attracted towards that site. It is also in the evidence of this
witness that the accused proceeded towards the deceased who had disgracefully turned out him from his house, and ran towards the deceased
with a kirch in his hand and inflicted injuries on him. The witness further deposed that the intervening distance between the accused and the
deceased was hardly 3A yards, when 'Lalkara' was raised by the accused. He proceeded towards the place of occurrence when the accused,
Karanjit Singh, inflicted the first blow and before reaching there, the accused inflicted second and third blows by that time. The other witnesses,
namely, Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh, Narinder Singh and Rajinder Singh also rushed towards the deceased, but before they reached, the accused
fled away from the spot. Harnam Singh also accompanied him in the threewheeler, in which the deceased was initially taken up to the main road on
way to Hospital, where the deceased was shifted in a truck, in which there were already 50 to 60 persons including PW Rajinder Singh. In the
meanwhile, the Police from Police Post, Miran Saheb, reached the Hospital and on enquiry, he narrated that the deceased, his son, was killed by
the accused with a Kirch. The witnesses also stated that while the deceased was being taken to the Hospital on truck, when they reached the
Police Post, Miran Saheb, Harnam Singh informed the Constable standing outside the Police Station and told that the deceased has been
murdered by the accused and they are shifting him to the Hospital.
7. PW Rajinder Singh is another eye witness of the occurrence and stated to have participated in the marriage of the daughter of Sangat Singh on
6th July 1992. He was assigned the duty of supervising the place where the meal has to be served to the invitees. The deceased and the accused
also happened to be there. When the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh, was standing near the water tap, he saw the accused raising ""lalkara"" and inflicting
34 injuries on the deceased with a Kirch in his possession in the abdomen and other parts of the body and, thereafter, took to his heels from the
place of occurrence. The witness stated to have chased the accused for about 200 yards and when he was quite close to him, the latter gave a
blow with his blood stained Kirch and he returned back, as the accused had earlier also committed murder and lest he may not kill him also. The
deceased was removed to the Hospital in injured condition in an autorickshaw. In the meanwhile, he started his truck standing outside the house of
Sangat Singh and followed the autorickshaw and stopped it on the way and shifted the deceased in the truck and proceeded to the Hospital. The
witness further stated that the occurrence has been seen by Harnam Singh, Ujagar Singh, Narinder Singh and also by him. He is also an attesting
witness to the seizure memo, vide which the vial full of blood given by the doctor to the Police was seized and sealed in his presence. The accused
was arrested on 09071992 by the Police on the Information provided by him pertaining to the concealment of the accused in village Maralyan. The
accused also made a disclosure statement, EXPWRS, while in Police custody, with regard to the concealment of weapon of offence and the place
where it was kept concealed, in his presence. In pursuance of this disclosure statement, the accused accompanied the Police and got recovered the
Kirch from a small bush and handed over to the Police. The Kirch was seized vide memo EXPWRS1 bearing his signature. The witness also
identified the Kirch shown to him to be the same, which was used by the accused in the commission of offence, viz., causing murderous assault,
and seized by the Polce at the instance of the accused. The witness further stated to have reached the house of Sangat Singh between 11.00a.rn
and 11.45a.m. By that time, the meals had not yet been served. The deceased was son of his brotherinlaw and related to him. In the
crossexamiantion, the witness stated that Sangat Singh was not related to him. He was assigned the duty in the store/ kitchen and was supervising
the supply of meals. He had parked his truck in the link road at a distance of about 200400 yards from the house of Sangat Singh. At the time of
incident, he was standing near the place of occurrence, but, however, could not say as to whether the accused inflicted three or four blows with a
kirch, on the deceased. The witness further stated that both the accused and the deceased were present and serving meals to the 'Baratis' in the
'Pandal'. It was after the first group had taken the meal and left the place, the deceased was seen standing under the shadow of 'Kikker1 tree near
the water tap. He saw towards the accused when latter raised a 'Lalkara' and he was the first person to reach the place of occurrence. The other
witnesses, namely, Ujagar Singh, Harnam Singh and Narinder Singh, were at a distance of 3 to 4 feet from the deceased at that time. When he
followed the accused after committing the crime, PW's Narinder Singh, Kulbir Singh, Harnam Singh also ran after him. When the accused inflicted
a blow upon him, which he escaped, they were at a distance of 15 to 20 feet from him. The police had also recorded his statement during
investigation. He had seen Harnam singh and Ujjagar singh and one or two more person removing the deceased in injurned condition to the
Hospital in auto riskshaw . He followed the auto rickshaw in his truck and had overtaken before it could reach the Police Post, Miran Saheb. The
deceased was shifted in the truck. There were many, persons, including mother and sister of the deceased, sitting in the truck and weeping at that
time, he stopped the truck near the Police Post at the instance of the family members of the deceased, and Harnam Singh told the Policeman
standing outside that the deceased had received Kirch injuries and was being taken to the Hospital, from the window of the truck. It is also in his
evidence that the Police reached the Hospital soon after that. When the accused was arrested by the Police, Harnam Singh and Narinder Singh,
besides him, were also present. The accused made a disclosure statement when arrested by the Police and accompanied the Police to a place
where he had kept the weapon of offence concealed and got it recovered. The weapon was seized and sealed by the Police on spot and,
thereafter, seal kept on his Superdnama.
8. In this like manner, PW Kulbir Singh also stated to have gone to the house of Sangat Singh on 06071992 to attend the marriage ceremony of
his daughter and saw both the accused and the deceased present there. It was about 1.30p.m. or2.00p.m., when he saw the deceased standing
near the handpump and the accused carrying a kirch in his hand and telling the deceased that he would not leave him alive, as the deceased has
turned out him from his house disgracefully yesterday, and inflicted four injuries near the arm pit and the chest of the deceased. The deceased fell
down unconscious after receiving injuries and started bleeding profusely, Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh and Ujagar Singh were also present on the
spot. The accused, however, managed to flee away from the spot by scaling the wall. The deceased was put in an autorickshaw by Ujagar Singh,
Harnam Singh and Rajinder Singh and removed to the Hospital. He also follwed them in the Hospital later on and, on reaching there, learnt that
deceased had expired and dead body was taken for autopsy. The Police had also arrived there by that time. He is also a witness to seizure memos
EXPWRS5 and EXPWRS6, vide which blood stained and plain earth were seized and sealed by the Police. In crossexamination, the witness
stated that Sangat Singh, however, is not his relation, but belongs to the same 'Baradari'. When he reached the house of Sangat Singh at 12.30
p.m., the barat had already arrived there. When the occurrence took place, the first group had already taken meals and the second group had yet
to occupy the seats. When the occurrence took place, Rajinder Singh, Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh were also with him near the handpump and
the deceased was about 5 to 7 yards away from them. The deceased was drinking water on the hand pump at that time and was attracted when
heard the 'Lalkara' raised by the accused and started inflicting injuries on the accused. His statement was recorded by the Police during
investigation and he narrated the entire episode of what has happened in the occurrence and seen/witnessed by him. He also stated that Rajinder
Singh is not related to him. His wife and PW Ujagar Singh are brother and sister. The witness further stated that the accused was known to him
since the time he had earlier committed a murder, in which he was, subsequently, acquitted for want of evidence. It is also in his evidence that
accused is a vagabond and extended frequent threats to the witness and nobody dares to give evidence against him out of fear. That Rajinder
Singh, Harnam Singh, Narinder Singh and Ujagar Singh along with others were performing their duties assigned to them by Sangat Singh in the
marriage. Another eye witness of the occurrence is PW Harnam Singh, who stated that he was in the marriage of the daughter of PW Sangat Singh
on 6th July, 1992, which he attended. The accused and the deceased were seen present there. It was at about 1.45 p.m. when accused Karanjit
Singh raised a 'Lalkara' from the compound of Sangat Singh, addressed to the deceased that he would not spare him for having disgracefully
turned out the accused from the house on the previous day. He further stated to have got attracted towards 'Lalkara' and saw the accused causing
injuries with a kirch on the ribs of the deceased one after the other. He rushed to the place of occurrence and by the time he reached there, the
accused fled away. He chased the accused, but soon returned to the place where the deceased was lying unconscious bleeding profusely. He
assisted the father of the deceased, Ujagar Singh, in lifting and removing the deceased in injured condition to the Hospital in autorickshaw. He
stated that the autorickshaw covered about two kilometers, when Rajinder Singh came from behind with his truck, the deceased was shifted in the
truck and when reached the Police Post, Miran Saheb, informed the Police Constable standing outside that the deceased has been murdered with
a kirch and was being taken to the Hospital. The deceased succumbed to the injuries soon after the Emergency Ward and his dead body was
taken in custody by the Police, which also had arrived at that time. He is also a witness to seizure memos EXPWUI and EXPWUS2, vide which
the wearing apparels of the deceased and sample of blood taken by the doctor from the dead body of the deceased, were seized and sealed. After
postmortem examination, dead body of the deceased was handed over vide receipt EXPWUS3 to perform the last rites ceremony. The witness
further stated that while he was sitting in the house of Ujagar Singh, some body informed that the accused is hiding in the Muralian link road, upto
which he along with Rajinder Singh and Narinder Singh proceeded to the Police Post and informed the Police where the accused was seen in
Muralian. The Police rushed to Muralian, spotted the accused and arrested him on 09.07.1992. While in Police custody, the accused disclosed to
the police about the weapon of the offence to have been kept concealed beneath the bridge of Mularian Prem Nagar under a bush. After recording
the disclosure statement EXPWRS by the Police, the accused took the police to the place near Prem Nagar Bridge and took out a kirch from the
bushes and handed over to the Police, which was seized and sealed in their presence vide EXPWRS1. the witness further stated that on
23.06.1994, three boys came to his house at about 10.00 p.m. and inflicted injuries, as he had to appear as witness on the following day and
threatened him to dissuade from appearing as a witness of prosecution and tendering evidence in the case. The police had also registered a case
about this incident. In crossexamination, the witness reiterated I have told the Police that the accused had inflicted injuries on the deceased in his
presence. When he went to the house to Sangat Singh, he saw PW Rajinder Singh was discharging the duty as supervisor in the kitchen and he
met him near the 'pandal'. The witness further stated that he was standing near PW Ujgar Singh when heard the 'Lalkara1 of the accused and they
were talking to each other. When the truck was brought by PW Rajinder Singh in front of the autorickshaw, 23 ladies were already sitting on the
front seat in the cabin of the truck and PW Rajinder Singh came out of the truck, lifted the deceased to the front seat of the truck. He, however,
could not recognize the ladies, as he himself was in the autorickshaw at that time and, thereafter, he also occupied the front seat in the cabin of the
truck and saw the mother and the sister of the deceased amongst other ladies in the truck. The doctor declared the deceased dead on reaching the
hospital. The accused was also standing near a 'Kikker' tree close to the water tap at the time he raised the 'Lalkara'. The accused was at a
distance of 10 to 15 feet from him, when he raised the 'Lalkara; people started running here and there, and there was an atmosphere of chaos and
confusion in the house at that time. He also followed the accused along with Rajinder Singh and Ujagar singh upto a distance of 10 to 12 feet, but
then came back to the place of occurrence. The store room and the 'kikker' tree near the handpump were adjacent to each other. The weapon
was recovered at the instance of the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement in the evening but before Sunset. The kirch was a
doubleedged weapon and one feet in length, stained with blood. After recovery, the kirch was seized and sealed, and marked as ""M"" after having
obtained from PW Rajinder Singh on whose Superdnama, it was kept earlier by the Police. He saw the accused carrying kirch in his right hand
and caught hold of the deceased with left hand, before running towards that place. The doctor had examined the deceased's dead body in the
Hospital in his presence and saw four injuries on his person. The witness further stated to have met the deceased on the alleged day of occurrence
at 8.00 a.m and the latter told that the accused came to him with the request to keep him as a conductor (Cleaner) of his truck, but the deceased
refused, as the accused had already committed a murder. The deceased also told him that soon after his refusal of the proposal by the accused to
become a Conductor with his truck, the accused extended threat to his life and this fact he had narrated to the Police, while recording the
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
9. Whereas the statement of PW Sangat Singh is to the effect that he had invited both the accused and the deceased to attend his daughter's
marriage, besides other people of the 'Baradari'. Sangat Singh further stated to have gone to the Gurudwara for the performance of marriage
Ceremony at 10.30 a.m and returned back at 11.15 a.m. The occurrence had taken place near the water tap, which was in his compound and he
heard at 1.45 p.m. that some one had killed the boy. He rushed to the spot and saw the deceased in injured condition lying on the ground. The
deceased was lifted and removed by Harnam Singh and Ujagar Singh. In Crossexamination, the witness stated that on reaching the spot, the
deceased was found unconscious. The father, Ujagar Singh, and Harnam Singh were also present there. The deceased was removed to the
Hospital by his father and Harnam Singh, and he also accompanied them only up to the main road and came back, as he had to give a sendoff to
the 'Barat'. The meals were being served at a place about 15 yards from the place of occurrence.
10. PW Tarlok Singh is the son of Sangat Singh and stated that the deceased and the accused both attended the marriage of his sister, Manjit
Kour, on 06.07.1992. He also stated to have been attracted on hearing the noise that the accused after killing the deceased had fled away from
the place of occurrence. The witness went on spot and saw the deceased lying on ground near the handpump. He was removed to the Hospital. In
crossexamination, the witness stated that 5060 persons were taking meals when he heard the noise and all of them ran towards the place where the
deceased was seen fallen on the ground. The father of the deceased and Harnam Singh, besides PW Kulbir Singh, were also present there.
11. As regards the first contention raised by Mr. Ajay Kotwal that the evidence provided by the witnesses suffers from glaring discrepancies and is
inconsistent, and thus, cannot be accepted unless corroborated by independent evidence, it is pertinent to point out that the discrepancies, which
do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, cannot be given undue importance; more so, when all the
important probabilitiesfactor echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. The murder in this case has taken place in broad daylight.
The eye witnesses subjected to grueling crossexamination and the defence has not been able to Spin out any infirmity or discrepancy, which may
render their evidence unworthy of reliance. Unless there is any good ground to think that the discrepancies are due to deliberate attempt to depart
from truth, it is unfair to discard their entire evidence. Some differences and discrepancies in details are generally found in the case of honest
witnesses and unless they are material, the witnesses need not necessarily be disbelieved. Minor discrepancies are possible even in the version of
truthful witnesses and such minor discrepancies only add to the truthfulness of their evidence. In this case, the prosecution rests on the evidence of
four eye witnesses, namely Ujagar Singh, Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh and Kulbir Singh. Their presence at the scene of occurrence has been
proved in the testimony of Sangat Singh, who ad unambiguously stated that these witnesses were invited to the marriage of his daughter and
participated in the ceremony. It is also proved in the testimony of PW Tarlok Singh, son of Sangat Singh, that the accused and the deceased were
also invited and participated in the marriage ceremony of his sister. All the four witnesses have stated in unequivocal terms about the manner in
which the accused assaulted the deceased with the kirch in his hand and inflicted injuries on his chest and abdomen, after raising a ""lalkara1 not to
leave the deceased alive since the latter and disgracefully turned out him from his house yesterday.' The presence of these eye witnesses on spot at
the time of occurrence has also been established in their evidence, and having seen the accused causing murderous assault on the deceased and
inflicting injuries on the deceased with the kirch in his possession has also been confirmed in their respective evidence. But PW Ujagar Singh, who
happens to be the father of the deceased, has stated with unerring clearity that the accused raised the 'Lalkara' at 1.45 p.m. when his son, Ajit Paul
Singh, was standing in his compound near the hand pump, after the first group of invitees and 'Baratis1 had taken meals and second group was yet
to occupy their seats. The accused raised the 'Lalkara1 addressing the deceased that he will not leave him alive since he had turned him out
disgracefully from his house a day before and proceeded towards him and inflicted four injuries on his chest and abdomen with a kirch. This
statement of Ujagar Singh, an eye witness, further stands fully corroborated in material particulars in the evidence of Harnam Singh, Kulbir Singh
and Rajinder Singh present on spot and witnesses the occurrence with their naked eyes. So is also affirmed in the testimony of the other eye
witnesses. Nothing inherently improbable or unnatural has been trotted out from their pungent crossexamination to cause any speak of doubt on
their veracity. The evidence provided by all the four witnesses, named above, is fair, straightforward, consistent, credible and trustworthy, and
inspires confidence in the Court. Despite their streamline crossexamination, the defence failed to shake their credibility.
12. While assessing and evaluation the evidence of the eye witnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles, namely (i) whether in circumstances
of the case, it was possible for the eye witnesses to be present at the scene and (ii) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable.
Credibility of a witness has to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out how he has fared in crossexamination and what impression is
created by his evidence taken in other context of the case and not by entering into the realm of conjectures and speculations. On scrutinizing the
evidence of PW Harnam Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Ujagar Singh, we find that they are consistent with one another so far as the
mode of manner, tone and tenor of the occurrence, assault and the place of occurrence, besides the weapon of assault used by the accused, the
number of injuries inflicted and the place where they were inflicted, are concerned, and nothing has been brought out in their crossexamination to
impeach their testimony. Their evidence is further fully corroborated by the medical testimony. The evidence given by these eye witnesses regarding
the manner of assault is cogent, consistent, and has impressed us as trustworthy. The evidence of these eye witnesses coupled with the recovery of
kirch and the medical evidence given by Dr. Anayat Ullah unmistakably connects the accused / applicant with the commission of the crime, i.e. the
assault on the deceased, which had resulted in his death. Simply on the score that the distance given by the eye witnesses between the accused and
the deceased is different, their testimonies do not deserve to be discarded because the evidence of these eye witnesses is otherwise convincing and
the same stood also corroborated by other facts established by the prosecution. The evidence of the eye witness, if accepted, is sufficient to
warrant conviction, though in appropriate cases, the Court may, as a measure of caution, seek some confirming circumstances from other sources.
But ordinarily, the evidence of a truthful eye witness always is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be
made to depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such as recovery of weapons, etc. at the instance of the accused
by the Police. This view stands supported by the Apex Court in Shrishail Nageshi Pare vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC 866.
13. Apart form that, discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony as is held by the Apex Court in Narotom vs. State. AIR 1978 SC 1542.
discrepancies in the testimony of eye witnesses on material or broad points have to be carefully weighed in arriving at the truth. But trifling
discrepancies, as has been pointed out by Mr. Kotwal during arguments referring to some variance with regard to the distance between the
accused and the deceased, the distance amongst the eye witnesses between each other, eye witnesses and the place where the deceased was
standing at the relevant time, should be ignored, as they are often a test of truth. Several persons giving their versions of an occurrence witnessed
by them are naturally liable to disagree on material points. Their powers of observation, expression or memory are not the same, and honest
differences are easily possible. In weighting evidence. It must be remembered that there are discrepancies of truth as well as falsehood, and that a
too minute attention to immaterial discrepancies may lead to serious failure of justice. It was also vainly argued by Mr. Kotwal that though there
were other independent witnesses present, but none including the eye witnesses intervened to save the accused and, thus, caused a serious dent in
the prosecution case as to its credibility and truth worthiness. We do not find any substance in the submission made by Mr. Kotwal for reasons
forthcoming from the record itself that the people were scared of reaching the accused to apprehend him out of fear or to intervene the deceased
to save him, as the accused earlier also had committed a murder and he had recently been acquitted for want of evidence. This fact further stands
strengthened in the evidence of Rajinder Singh, Kulbir Singh and Harnam Singh, when they stated to have chased the accused, but while reaching
to apprehend him, the accused gave a blow with the kirch in his hand to these witnesses. But he managed to escape and, thereafter, they did not
gather courage to follow him and returned. In such circumstances, the evidence of eye witnesses could not be rejected merely on the ground that
they did not intervene to save the deceased, and other independent witnesses have not been examined. The reason is obvious. The scare of the
accused, who had earlier also committed a murder, and if the witnesses come forward to give an evidence, may have met the same fate, made
them not to depose against the accused. Even PW Harnam Singh, an eye witnesses to occurrence, in his evidence has unambiguously started that
on 23.06.1994 at about 10.00 p.m., three boys came to his house and inflicted injuries on him as the witness had to appear in the Court on the
next day. It is also in his evidence that those three boys threatened him to refrain from appearing as a witness and in respect of which he got a case
registered with the Police. Nothing was asked to the witnesses by the defence in crossexamination and, therefore, the fact assumes affirmation. It
was PW Harnam Singh, who also stated to have informed the Policeman standing outside the Police Post, Miran Saheb, from the truck, in which
they were removing the deceased to the Hospital, that the deceased had been murdered with a kirch and which entry was made in the Roznamcha
and, subsequently, dispatched to the Police Station, R.S. Pura, and where the case was registered. This fact also finds corroboration in the
testimony of PW Rajinder Singh. This clearly shows that the FIR had been based on the information of a person, who had full knowledge of the
occurrence.
14. Further, the veracity of a witness is adjusted not only from his individual statement, but also form his testimony taken in conjunction with all
other facts brought out in the testimony of the other witnesses. The eye witnesses, therefore, in our view, have come out with unvarnished truth and
narrated sequence of events as to how and in what manner the occurrence has taken place, viz., accused caused the murderous assault on the
deceased with the kirch in his hand on the fateful day and corroborated each other in all vital points. The question of examining independent
witnesses arises only when the Court has some genuine doubt regarding the evidence and reliability of the witnesses, much less the eye witnesses,
already adduced and examined in the case. The conclusion of guilt in this case, is therefore, established conclusively on the material placed by the
prosecution, consisting of the unimpeachable and clinching evidence of the eye witnesses about the occurrence, and the defence has miserably
failed to exact anything from their evidence to render their testimony incredible, in inconviencing and unrealiable.
15. It was next contended by Mr. Kotwal, appellant's counsel, that all the four witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to each other,
their evidence is interested and tainted and, thus, without independent corroboration, cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused.
Undoubtedly, the eye witnesses are related to the deceased. Their presence on spot at the time of occurrence has been proved in the testimony of
Sangat Singh, when he stated to have invited these witnesses and they participated in the marriage ceremony of his daughter. Their presence on
spot at the time of occurrence cannot, therefore, be ruled out. The evidence of these witnesses was recorded immediately after the occurrence by
the Investigating Officer. The information with regard to the commission of the offence, first in point in time, was made by Harnam Singh, an eye
witnesses of the occurrence, and which formed the basis for the registration of case after the report was sent by the Police Post, Miran Saheb to
the Polcie Station, R.S. Pura against the accused. The witnesses are known to each other and also knew the appellant and the victim. In view of
the consistency in the evidence of these witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded and whittled down merely because they are related and
interested witnesses, as is also held by the Apex Court in Ram Anup Singh Vs. State of Bihar. (2002) 6 SC 686. Where the evidence of the eye
witnesses is otherwise credible, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that their evidence is interested or partisan. Evidence of eye witnesses
cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground they are relatives of the deceased. Normally, close relations of the deceased are not likely to falsely
implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of their relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept such criticism. The
witnesses may be related but that does not mean and imply total rejection of the evidence: interested may be but to implicate and real culprit and
not falsely implicate the innocent person. Nothing has been shown by the defence either from its evidence or from the evidence of others that those
witnesses have any bias against the accused. These are the most natural witnesses to speak about what had happened before their eyes. Positional
importance of these witnesses as witnesses of the occurrence was significant. Relationship, therefore, in our view, is not a factor to affect the
credibility of the witnesses and itself is discernible from the record that even if other witnesses were present, but have not been contacted and their
evidence recorded by the Investigating Officer, the evidence of the related witnesses cannot be discarded, when link after link is forged so firmly in
their credible testimony only lends to manacle the accused inescapably in the commission of the crime, unless a motive is proved to spare the real
assailant and falsely involve another person. The mere circumstances that the eye witnesses and the deceased are closely related would be of no
avail to the defence, rather add to the value of their evidence, because their main concern would be in getting the real culprit rather than innocent
person, punished.
16. It is further apt to point out the evidence of eyewitnesses, who are related to the deceased, cannot be rejected when their presence at the
scene of occurrence is admitted by other eye witnesses. The presence of the relatives at the spot is only natural and corroborates their evidence.
But straightforward and trustworthy evidence of the relations of the deceased needs no corroboration to sustain conviction. Such evidence cannot
be discarded on the sole ground of interestedness in the prosecution case.
17. The term 'interested1 postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or other convicted for some
animus or some other reason. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit form the result of a litigation and when
in seeing an accused person punished. A witness, who is natural one and his presence proved by other eyewitnesses at the time of occurrence,
cannot be dubbed as only interested, notwithstanding his relationship with the deceased, which exhibits his concern to see that the real culprit is
punished. The only thing that puts the Court on guard in case of related witnesses is that their evidence be subjected to close scrutiny and viewed
with caution and circumspection. In taking all appropriate cautions while appraising the evidence of the eye witnesses, who happed to be relatives
of the deceased, and examining its probative value with reference to the entire mosaic of facts appearing from the record, we are clearly of the
view that it is not open for us to reject the evidence without anything more on the mere ground of relationship or favour or possible prejudice. The
contention of Mr. Kotwal on this count, in our opinion, is also devoid of any substance/force to merit acceptance. 18. Another limb of argument
put across by Mr. Kotwal, appellant's counsel, is that medical evidence is in direct conflict with the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses. It is
further stated that the doctor in his evidence though stated that the total length of the weapon of offence tallies with the sketch drawn by him
EXPWAU1, but the breadth of the blade and/or length of the blade does not tally with the weapon shown to him in the Court. According to Mr.
Kotwal, the/doctor further stated that the injuries found on the person of the deceased appear to have been caused by one weapon with the blade
having V2"" width. While it is true that the postmortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor
conducting the postmortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies visavis the injuries
appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon there for and it would then be the prosecutor's duty and obligation to
have the corroborative evidence available on the record from the other prosecution witnesses. According to PW Dr. Anayat Ulah, the deceas jd
was brought by ASI Jaswant Singh of Police Station R.S. Pura in the injured condition being a stabbing case, who died in the Emergency Ward.
The doctor found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
1. Incised punctured wound in the left mid axillary line in the fifth intercostals space, 2.5cm x 1.5 cm, 5.6"" deep into left lung substance measuring
1/2 cm at the tip in breadth into the left ventricle. 400 ml of blood was present in the pericardium.
2. incised punctured wound on the left posterior axillary fold in the ninth intercostals space. 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm deep into the lung and left
diaphragmatic domb down into the supero posterior wall of fundus of stomach 7.5 cm x V2 cm.
3. Incised punctured wound in front of the body of the stornum in the mid part !/2 cm x Yz cm.
4. Incised punctured wound in the eight intercostals space on the right costal margin in midculavicular region 1.5 cm x Yt cm internally.
19. It is also in the certificate of the doctor that lungs substance pericardium, stomach and right kidney were ruptured and, in his opinion, the death
was caused due to hemorrhagic shock. In the certificate, EXPWAU, the doctor further opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The injuries mentioned in the certificate could be possible by the weapon shown in the Court. Mr. Kotwal, appellant'
counsel, however, submitted that since the breadth of the blade or length of the blade of the weapon shown to the doctor in the court did not tally
with the sketch drawn by him as EXPWAU1, it does not support the prosecution case and there being a material contradiction between the eye
witnesses, on the one hand, and the medical evidence, on the other, the prosecution case crumbles down like a pack of cards. It is significant to
point out that the doctor has nowhere given the dimension of the weapon, viz, kirch in the sketch drawn at EXPWAU1, so it is highly hypothetical
for the doctor to state that it did not tally with the breadth or length of blade of the weapon shown in sketch drawn in EXPWAU1. On the one
hand, the dimension of the weapon seized by the Police has been clearly indicated in the sketch drawn by them in EXPWHS2 where the breadth
of the weapon, kirch, from the middle is 1"" and gets reduced while proceeding towards tip, as is visible from the graph in the EXPWHS2. So,
much significance or weight cannot be given to this aspect of the statement of the doctor in the facts and circumstances of the case enumerated
from the record, particularly when the sketch of the weapon drawn by the Police manifestly seems to be true replica of the sketch drawn by the
doctor EXPWAU1. The number of injuries, the place of infliction and the possibility of these injuries having been caused by the weapon shown to
the doctor in the Court, stand fully corroborated in the testimony of the eye witnesses, who also happen to be the attesting witnesses of the seizure
memo, by which the weapon was seized by the Investigating Officer. So, it cannot be said, in our view, with certitude that medical evidence is in
conflict with the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses, so as to render the prosecution case redundant with doubt and suspicion. In Krishan and
Another vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police. 2003 (5) Supreme 173, the Apex Court, while dealing with the probative value of the medical
evidence, held as under:
It is trite that where the eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion point to alternative possibilities is not accepted
as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process.
Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely
prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be
tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy;
consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of the observation etc. Then the
probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.
20. It is well settled that the positive evidence in a case is that of the eye witnesses and the evidence of a medical expert is merely an opinion
corroborating the same. The value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It is proved that the injuries could have been caused in the manner
and nothing more. Merely a statement of the doctor that the breadth of the weapon shown to him in the Court does not tally with the weapon
shown in the sketch, itself is otherwise hypothetical statement, as no breadth or length was given by the doctor in the sketch prepared by him in
EXPWAU1. It cannot be said that the medical evidence runs counter to the evidence of the eyewitnesses, particularly when there is a consistency
between the two about the nature of the weapon and the injuries inflected in the occurrence with took place. Even in extreme situations, when the
eye witnesses' count is credible and trustworthy, as in the instant case pointed out, medical opinion in the alternative is not acceptable as
conclusive. This contention of the learned appellant's counsel also does not bear any substance to merit consideration.
21. The other incriminating circumstance to corroborate the prosecution cse is the recovery of the weapon of offence, viz., kirch, at the instance of
the accused, in pursuance of his disclosure statement made, while in police custody, to the Investigating Officer in presence of the witnesses. The
evidence with regard to the disclosure statement and the recovery of weapon of offence, used by the accused in the commission of the crime,
remained unassailed, unchallenged and unquestioned. It is in the evidence of PW Harnam Singh that on getting the information that the accused is
hiding himself in Muralian, he accompanied by Rajinder Singh and Narinder Singh, proceeded to Police Post, Miran Saheb, and informed about it.
It is also in the evidence of Harnam Singh that the Police immediately rushed to Muralian accompanied by them and arrested the accused. He
further stated that while in Police custody, the accused made a disclosure statement with regard to the weapon of offence to have been kept
concealed underneath a bridge near Prem Nagar in the bushes. The accused accompanied the Police to the place of the concealment under the
bridge and brought out a kirch from bushes,, which was seized and sealed by the Police in his presence. He has admitted the contents of the
contents of the disclosure statement and the recovery memos EXPWRS1 and EXPWRS2 respectively bearing his signatures. So is also affirmed in
the testimony of PW Rajinder Singh. The weapon of offence has been identified by the witnesses to be the same. The investigating officer, PW
Hardeep Singh, is a scribe of the disclosure statement and seized after having been recovered by the Police at the instance of the accused in
pursuance of disclosure statement made by him while in Police custody. The sketch of the weapon marked as EXPWHS2 was prepared by the
Investigating Office and he also recorded the statement of the eye witnesses and on the completion of the investigation, he found that accused guilty
of the offences under sections 302 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. Nothing specific has been asked from the Investigating Officer with regard to the
nonexamination of the independent witnesses, who stated to have been present on spot at the time of occurrence. The case of the prosecution,
thus, stands fully supported in the testimony of the Investigating Officer. He has collected the evidence and other materials during investigation and
found the offence of murder established against the accused and nothing is found in his crossexamination to render his investigation biased.
22. Mr. Kotwal further submitted that the date on the Court copy of the FIR has been tampered in order to prove its receipt to the Magistrate on
07.07.1992, whereas, in fact, it has been dispatched to the Court on 08.07.1992 and unexplained delay of two days in fatal to the prosecution
case. The plea taken by the defence manifestly appears to be without any substance on a bare perusal of the copy of the FIR. The date stands
corrected as 07.07.1992 and bears the signature and seal of the Magistrate. The plea further stands belied by the date 07.07.1992 recorded in
column No. 8 of the Prosecuting Officer while submitting the FIR in the Court. That apart, the mere delay in dispatch of FIR to the Magistrate is
not fatal, when position explained by the Investigating Agency. But in this case, no conclusion can be drawn on such ground that the FIR was not
lodged on the same date after the incident or it was antedated. This plea is also, therefore, devoid of any legal force and cannot be accepted.
23. So far as motive, with which the accused is stated to have been actuated to commit the murder of the deceased, is concerned, it is pertinent to
point out that the motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention to do a particular act. There is unchallenged and uncontroverted
evidence that the accused, a day before, went to the house of the deceased and asked him to work as a Cleaner with him on his truck, but the
latter declined in standing that he had already murdered a member of their 'Baradari', which irritated the accused and he threatened the deceased,
and the accused left in a fit of rage and revenge. It is also proved from the consistent and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that the
accused raised a 'Lalkara' before inflicting a murderous assault on the deceased that since the accused had been turned out from the house
disgracefully a day before, he will not leave the deceased alive. Apart from that, where the prosecution rests on the testimony of the eye witnesses,
motive loses both relevance and significance and even if not proved, is not fatal to the prosecution case. 24. Another argument put forth by the
appellant's counsel is with regard to the plea of alibi taken by the appellant/accused in defence, It is stated that the accused was, in fact, arrested
by the Police from the Poonch and not from the village Muralian. The plea of alibi flows from section 11 of the Evidence Act. The word 'alibi1 is a
Latin origin and means ""elsewhere"". It is a convenient term used for the defence taken by an accused that when the occurrence took place, he was
so far away from the place of occurrence that it was highly improbable that he would have participated in the crime. Alibi is not an exception
(special or general) envisaged in the Ranbir Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognized under section 11 of the Evidence
Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. The burden of proving commission of offence by the accused so as to fasten
the liability of guilt on him remains on the prosecution. The plea of alibi taken by the accused needs to be considered only when the burden, which
lies on the prosecution is discharged satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden, then it is incumbent upon the
accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with certainty, so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and time of occurrence. In
view of the overwhelming evidence collected during investigation and adduced during trial, including that of Sangat Singh and Tarlok Singh, in
whose house the marriage ceremony was performed in stating that the accused and the deceased were invited and participated in the marriage, and
the occurrence has been established beyond hilt in the evidence of the eye witness, the accused has not succeeded in discharging this burden,
which is, undoubtedly, heavy. However, while weighing the prosecution case and defence case, pitted against each other, the balance tilts in favour
of the prosecution, as no evidence has been adduced by the accused in proof of plea of alibi. 25. After taking conspectus of the fact and
circumstances discussed above in its cumulative, we are clearly of the view, that the consistent and credible evidence of the eye witnesses fully
supported in the medical testimony and other incriminating circumstances unerringly prove the guilt of the accused beyond any pale of doubt and
are inconsistent with his innocence. The trial court has appreciated, estimated and weighed the evidence in its proper perspective fairly, decided the
character of the witnesses correctly and reached the result rightly. We are, therefore, in agreement with the findings of the Trial Court and confirm
the findings returned of the sentence awarded. This appeal, therefore, possessing no merit is dismissed and the sentence awarded by the Trial
Court confirmed. Both the appeal as well as the reference rnade by the Trial Court, is disposed of accordingly.
